Mana, Shamans, and the Cultural Misappropriation behind Fantasy Terms

[MGibster]

I'm not sure if you're really having comprehension problems with what I'm saying, or just trolling here. It doesn't seem like you're interested in the general issue, but rather trying to make some kind pointless argument about OA specifically, so you do you.

I'm not trolling but I do think you're having difficulty writing down what you actually intend to mean. You specifically mention economic harm and followed that up by saying an actual Japanese developer was unable to work on a product similar to OA. If you just want to drop it, fine, but it's not like I'm pulling any of this out of the blue. I can only go by what you write not by what you meant.

 

[Hussar]

Druids are not shamans.

We don't know an awful lot of the specifics of druidic belief from ancient Celtic times. The ancient Celtic druids may have been very shamanic . . . or not. However, modern day notions of druids, in fantasy literature, in popular mythology, in modern day neo-pagan religions . . . do have some overlap with shamanism, but the concepts are not interchangeable.

A better solution to the shaman problem D&D has, isn't dropping shamans from the game and replacing them with druids. It's elevating shamans to the same level as druids, as potentially powerful characters. We need a good shaman class in the core rules, one that avoids "primitive" stereotypes like savagery or even "noble savagery". When a shaman character is as likely to be an orc as they are an elf or a halfling . . . from a nomadic tribe or from an urban settlement . . . . that's the way to go!

Well, that depends on a certain value of "better".

Do we need a third "divine" (and I'm using that term loosely) class in the game? And, since WotC has been VERY reticent about adding classes, I'm not sure how viable this one is. It might very well be. Fair enough.

D&D druids are barely connected to European druids as it stands. There's no mention of mistletoe anymore. Nothing about tracking seasons or stone circles or anything traditionally associated with druids. The examples of shaman in the Monster Manual can, and have, already been replaced by the druid class, as per the druid writeup in the Monster Manual. There's certainly nothing specifically shamanistic about, say, lizard folk in the description of lizard folk. So, IMO, since Shaman doesn't exist as a class, it's the simple expedient to replace Shaman with Druid. It already means that since shaman are mechanically druids in 5e D&D.

This can work as an artistic choice.

It can also be seen as cultural erasure of any reference to shamans in the core books and whitewashing all non-European shamans to become pseudo-European Celts instead of using some mechanical elements of D&D druids to support shamanic concepts being used in D&D games.

Since the shaman that exist in the books don't actually have any real connection to real world shaman, other than name, there's no whitewashing going on. And, frankly, druids are "pseudo-European Celt" in name only. They have already removed any references from the class to actual, historical druids. Since a Lizardfolk shaman isn't related to shamanism in any real way, removing it and replacing it with druids isn't whitewashing.

Now, if there is a viable shaman class in 5e? Then we can change it back.

 

[Mallus]

But culture is like an IP. Particularly cultures that are somewhat obscure and have some broadly interesting myth/stories/ideas. That IP has value, and that IP can be damaged.

Culture ain’t like IP. Ain’t in the same ballpark. Ain’t in the same league. Ain’t even the same <censored> sport.

(apologies to Jules Winnfield)

Is it just me, or has neoliberal capitalism eaten every other mode of thinking?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

"Spiritualist" is not at all accurate to what a shaman is, with a specific connotation to the 19th century occult movement "spiritualism." Calling shamans spiritualists would be a rather egregious instance of cultural appropriation/colonialism, for those concerned with such things, considering that the 19th century spiritualism movement was almost entirely in Europe and the US.

Shamanism is not specific to the Tungus people. The word derived from them, but is used to refer to practices and beliefs held by cultures across the globe. Using it in such a way is not cultural misappropriation.

I agree that shamans should not be equated with druids. The best solution, in my mind, is to create a shaman class that actually practices shamanism, albeit the D&D version. This doesn't require a sensitivity reader but someone who knows something about shamanism.

I didn't mean "spiritualist" in an occult way. I just meant like they draw power from the spirits of nature. It isn't a perfect name, but there's rarely a perfect name for something. I just provided an alternate to shamans, if for some reason it did need changing.

 

[Dire Bare]

Do we need a third "divine" (and I'm using that term loosely) class in the game? And, since WotC has been VERY reticent about adding classes, I'm not sure how viable this one is. It might very well be. Fair enough.

Do we need <insert class>? We don't "need" any classes . . . we could simple D&D down to three basic classes, the warrior, the mystic, and the rogue.

Shamans, if done right, would represent a different sort of caster from that of a cleric or druid. The class would have to represent an archetype that embodies elements of real world shamanism and fantasy shamanism (without dragging along the noble savage or primitive savage baggage). It would have to play differently and offer players a meaningful choice when compared to other casters. This isn't an easy design goal, as it's been tried multiple times in 2nd and 4th edition without sticking. But I think it's worth attempting.

For arcane casters . . . do we "need" the warlock, the sorcerer, and the artificer? We already have the wizard! If we can have four arcane casters, we can have three divine casters. As long as each class is distinct in concept and play style, why not?

Shamans are not druids. Shamans are not primitive clerics or priests. Shamans interact with the divine in different ways that these other two archetypes.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Do we need <insert class>? We don't "need" any classes . . . we could simple D&D down to three basic classes, the warrior, the mystic, and the rogue.

Shamans, if done right, would represent a different sort of caster from that of a cleric or druid. The class would have to represent an archetype that embodies elements of real world shamanism and fantasy shamanism (without dragging along the noble savage or primitive savage baggage). It would have to play differently and offer players a meaningful choice when compared to other casters. This isn't an easy design goal, as it's been tried multiple times in 2nd and 4th edition without sticking. But I think it's worth attempting.

For arcane casters . . . do we "need" the warlock, the sorcerer, and the artificer? We already have the wizard! If we can have four arcane casters, we can have three divine casters. As long as each class is distinct in concept and play style, why not?

Shamans are not druids. Shamans are not primitive clerics or priests. Shamans interact with the divine in different ways that these other two archetypes.

Yeah, I think we should have a Shaman class in the game, but we don't really need one. If they did make one, they would probably make it be a Druid subclass, because they have a phobia of class making in 5e.

(If I were to do it, I would probably use a feature like Pact Magic to differentiate them from other divine casters.)

 

[Hussar]

I totally agree. And, since the casters presented in the Monster Manual that use the term "shaman" incorrectly, then why not remove the term and use the term that is correct - "druid"?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I totally agree. And, since the casters presented in the Monster Manual that use the term "shaman" incorrectly, then why not remove the term and use the term that is correct - "druid"?

I don't think personally druid is more correct, and I think there should be a difference between Druids and Shamans.

 

[Hussar]

I don't think personally druid is more correct, and I think there should be a difference between Druids and Shamans.

Which is great an all.

But, shamans don't exist in 5e.

So, right now, there is no contrast because, in 5e, shaman ARE druids. Full stop. That's how they are defined.

You basically have three choices at that point:

A) add a shaman class to define shaman - a very long process that is not guaranteed to succeed as issues with class design run into the vetting process - see psionics for a perfect example of a class hung up in development hell.

B) replace the seven instances in the MM where the word shaman is used with the word druid, which is what they actually mean.

C) Add a Shaman to the Monster Manual in the NPC section, same as we have Noble and Druid. Since it's a "monster", it doesn't have to follow class construction rules, and can have a unique spell list and abilities.

I prefer simpler solutions. It's quick, easy, gets the job done and solves the problem.

Heck, you could do all three. Replace the words in subsequent printings of the Monster Manual and issue an errata AND begin development of a Shaman class. An NPC Shaman, divorced from class doesn't have to run the gauntlet of Unearthed Arcana revisions and can be added pretty easily.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, right now, there is no contrast because, in 5e, shaman ARE druids. Full stop. That's how they are defined.

I don't play 5E but based on the text people posted on shamans and druids here, it seems they are a subcategory of Druid (some Druids are Shamans but not all druids are Shamans), and it is just meant to be a thing where you reskin your druid as a shaman (perhaps explaining the flavor of how they get their powers slightly differently, and carefully selecting spells to best reflect a shaman character). If you just change all those instances into Druid, you do lose a potential distinction they were going for (and possibly a bit of flavor)